Trance750:Jubeebee: Trance750: Oh I'm pretty sure the US has a stock of biological weapons, hidden somewhere, and I know we still have several thousand nuclear weapons, which if that does not quality as a WMD, I don't know what does.

We seemed to have adopted a policy of 'We can have them, but you cannot'

It's not illegal to HAVE WMD. It's illegal to USE WMD, unless they're used against you first. And that was my point; we don't "officially" have biological or chemical weapons, so our response to any WMD attack would be to start lobbing missiles.

So then, why did we deem that Saddam could not have weapons? In fact, wasen't that the whole song-and-dance that Bushie-Boy gave?

UN Resolution 687, that's why. One of the provisions of the cease-fire in the first Gulf War was that Saddam give up all his WMDs and verify that it had been done.

ChipNASA:Uchiha_Cycliste: ChipNASA: ChipNASA: Uchiha_Cycliste: ChipNASA: Apparently they have already started

Ugarit Albulel Deir Al-Zour

Chemical weapons already being used in Syria....7/21/12

a godlikeproductions forum post... seems legit

Also Al Alarabiya ..I heard it on NPR this morning but I can't find the link to the UAE news report that they talked about...

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/21/227615.html

Here's another link from the Telegraph UK that says Assad could already be using chem weapons against his own people

Assad could already be using chem weapons against his own people

Everything is still coming from blogs and prefaced with "some rumors"I'll wait.

I agree but when more and more of the major agencies are picking up the story, I'm going to lean toward "possible"....then again....

[cdn.ientry.com image 616x347][worldtvnews.com image 600x450]

/taking it with a grain

I'm listening to PRI's news of the world, and they disagree with you. I'm sticking with them.There is concerns that they *may* use them, despite promises that they are meant only for foreign threats. But noone is saying anything about them already being used. I think your fears (or joy) is unfounded. And you are intentionally spreading lies.

All persons,regardless of their name ,race,nationality sex etc, should be rounded up and killed.Quickly. Of course when we run out of round-upers then we would have to kill ourselves. So that will be a problem.

Trance750:Jubeebee: Trance750: Oh I'm pretty sure the US has a stock of biological weapons, hidden somewhere, and I know we still have several thousand nuclear weapons, which if that does not quality as a WMD, I don't know what does.

We seemed to have adopted a policy of 'We can have them, but you cannot'

It's not illegal to HAVE WMD. It's illegal to USE WMD, unless they're used against you first. And that was my point; we don't "officially" have biological or chemical weapons, so our response to any WMD attack would be to start lobbing missiles.

So then, why did we deem that Saddam could not have weapons? In fact, wasen't that the whole song-and-dance that Bushie-Boy gave?

He used them. Against civilians, which I always thought should have been the reason we went into Iraq. But it wasn't that he wasn't allowed to have them, it was that he refused to allow the UN access to inspect, like everyone else does.

Jubeebee:Trance750: So then, why did we deem that Saddam could not have weapons? In fact, wasen't that the whole song-and-dance that Bushie-Boy gave?

I'm not one to defend anything Bush did, but there were several UN resolutions regarding Iraq's stockpile dating back to the Iran-Iraq war when Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranian troops and some rebellious Iraqi cities. That goes against the whole "can have, cannot use" policy. Once you use chemical weapons, other, bigger countries are going to revoke your chemical-weapon-having privileges.